Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Nope, went through it with a fine tooth comb, as did 2 career services counselors. Same with cover letter (although a few things changed here and there on those with different firms, but nonetheless, I figure most firms don't actually take the time to read cover letters with how many apps they get).

Anonymous User wrote:I posted this on another thread just a minute ago, but I'll add it here as well-

So far my experience had been bad:23 interviews0 CBs8/11 dings in the market I want (particularly because the remaining 3 are firms I have no shot at).Haven't heard from other markets yet (which is odd because I interviewed at a couple firms in NYC and those were quick for most people).

Mass mailed every single NALP firm in my target market (major market) and rejected at every single one

Mass mailed every single NALP firm in a state that connects to the one I am from and was either rejected or haven't heard from every single one.

Mass mailed every single small to mid size firm on martindale's (50 attorneys and above) in the market I want and got nothing but rejects with the exception of one firm that says they want to do a screening interview, but the recruiting coordinator wouldn't call me back.

So a total mass mailings are well over 500 firms, with a total of 0 interviews (1 that said they want to interview me but never returned my phone call).

I'm a t3 to t10 transfer. Top 2% at my old school but not much else because journal write-on results aren't here. I also didn't work last summer (did summer school). Also, looking at an extra $130K in debt as a result of the transfer (gave up a free-ride).

In all fairness, though, I should mention I was an incredibly bad interviewee at most of OCI because I was nervous. But even then, it seemed like a lot of firms didn't really ask me much of anything besides maybe one or two questions to clarify things on my resume (such as what did you do in summer of 07'), and after that simply just asked me if I had questions for them, which is where the other 15-18 minutes of the interview went. That seemed like a complete waste of time because WTF good does it do me to learn a ton about a firm when they don't give me a callback. I think the time would've been better spent if firms would actually have asked me questions.

Also, being a bad interviewer doesn't do much justice for explaning the 500+ dings I got from mass mailings.

Wow, that sucks man. Has career services given you any good advice? Was your tier 3 a respected school like Gonzaga or some craphole? That might play a factor. Also, I hate to say it, but I think the ultra mass mailing might be affecting the outcome as well. Firms probably get tons of form letters from solid candidates. They probably want someone who at least writes something specific about the firm. Then again, who knows. I have to admit, it's a bit odd that you've gotten over 500 rejections. Do you have a massive pile of rejection letters at home?

Anonymous User wrote:Has anyone gotten a callback from Milbank NY, Hughes Hubbard NY, or Shearman & Sterling NY? If so, school/grades, and how long from screening interview to when you got the call inviting you for a callback?

I have a friend who got a call back via email a couple days after the interview. T2 school, top 5%

Just heard from Milbank yesterday. Apparently they just started their first round callback announcements.

Anonymous User wrote:I posted this on another thread just a minute ago, but I'll add it here as well-

So far my experience had been bad:23 interviews0 CBs8/11 dings in the market I want (particularly because the remaining 3 are firms I have no shot at).Haven't heard from other markets yet (which is odd because I interviewed at a couple firms in NYC and those were quick for most people).

Mass mailed every single NALP firm in my target market (major market) and rejected at every single one

Mass mailed every single NALP firm in a state that connects to the one I am from and was either rejected or haven't heard from every single one.

Mass mailed every single small to mid size firm on martindale's (50 attorneys and above) in the market I want and got nothing but rejects with the exception of one firm that says they want to do a screening interview, but the recruiting coordinator wouldn't call me back.

So a total mass mailings are well over 500 firms, with a total of 0 interviews (1 that said they want to interview me but never returned my phone call).

I'm a t3 to t10 transfer. Top 2% at my old school but not much else because journal write-on results aren't here. I also didn't work last summer (did summer school). Also, looking at an extra $130K in debt as a result of the transfer (gave up a free-ride).

In all fairness, though, I should mention I was an incredibly bad interviewee at most of OCI because I was nervous. But even then, it seemed like a lot of firms didn't really ask me much of anything besides maybe one or two questions to clarify things on my resume (such as what did you do in summer of 07'), and after that simply just asked me if I had questions for them, which is where the other 15-18 minutes of the interview went. That seemed like a complete waste of time because WTF good does it do me to learn a ton about a firm when they don't give me a callback. I think the time would've been better spent if firms would actually have asked me questions.

Also, being a bad interviewer doesn't do much justice for explaning the 500+ dings I got from mass mailings.

Wow, that sucks man. Has career services given you any good advice? Was your tier 3 a respected school like Gonzaga or some craphole? That might play a factor. Also, I hate to say it, but I think the ultra mass mailing might be affecting the outcome as well. Firms probably get tons of form letters from solid candidates. They probably want someone who at least writes something specific about the firm. Then again, who knows. I have to admit, it's a bit odd that you've gotten over 500 rejections. Do you have a massive pile of rejection letters at home?

My tier 3 is a respected school in the region, but not so much out of it. I thought that was a factor but there are other transfers here from my old school and schools similarly situated who did really well, so I really have no idea what the deal is with OCI besides just my lack of interviewing skills (possibly?-- I really don't know though because a lot of firms really didn't interview me but just asked me what questions I had for them).

I know the mega spamming isn't the most effective method of getting a job, but it's just really hard to target firms because it's unclear as to what firms even have a summer program this year (about 50% that did last year don't this year), and then out of those that do it seems like most have cut close to 50% of their programs. I actually did have a large pile of rejection letters sitting around at home until I just started throwing them out right away. I think I actually threw a few away without even opening them because I knew they were rejections without even opening them. Many firms emailed back as well though-- It was actually pretty bad when I was spamming during the day because it felt like I was getting rejections just about as fast as I was sending out emails.

Overall, I think last year I would have at least ended up with something out of OCI (even if not a top vault firm), but this year is definitely rougher (but I guess it's not exactly new news that grades alone weren't going to cut it this year, and the lack of journal acceptance (yet) or prior experience didn't help).

Anonymous User wrote:My tier 3 is a respected school in the region, but not so much out of it. I thought that was a factor but there are other transfers here from my old school and schools similarly situated who did really well, so I really have no idea what the deal is with OCI besides just my lack of interviewing skills (possibly?-- I really don't know though because a lot of firms really didn't interview me but just asked me what questions I had for them).

I know the mega spamming isn't the most effective method of getting a job, but it's just really hard to target firms because it's unclear as to what firms even have a summer program this year (about 50% that did last year don't this year), and then out of those that do it seems like most have cut close to 50% of their programs. I actually did have a large pile of rejection letters sitting around at home until I just started throwing them out right away. I think I actually threw a few away without even opening them because I knew they were rejections without even opening them. Many firms emailed back as well though-- It was actually pretty bad when I was spamming during the day because it felt like I was getting rejections just about as fast as I was sending out emails.

Overall, I think last year I would have at least ended up with something out of OCI (even if not a top vault firm), but this year is definitely rougher (but I guess it's not exactly new news that grades alone weren't going to cut it this year, and the lack of journal acceptance (yet) or prior experience didn't help).

I've read/heard that the questions you ask can actually be really important and it's important to put some thought into it. I've been told some interviewers will grade you specifically on the questions you ask. If you think about it, most law student resumes probably look about the same. We all have some random crap from UG, some random part-time work experience, and similar grades, etc. So, one good way to differentiate between the masses is quality of questions we ask, because it shows that we've actually thought about the firm and thus are interested (supposedly).

The same would probably be true for mass mailing. Although all firms are basically the same, they like to think they are super special and thus are looking for you to show them how special you think you are. It's a lame thing, I know.

Also, law firm interviewing is just plain retarded in general. There have been numerous studies done that show that the type of interviewing we do has absolutely no correlation to job performance. There's a name for the type of interviewing it is, but I forgot. Anyway, I think another good approach to interviews with law firms is to strike up a convo about a mutual interest. Then you both enjoy talking, etc.

Anonymous User wrote:My tier 3 is a respected school in the region, but not so much out of it. I thought that was a factor but there are other transfers here from my old school and schools similarly situated who did really well, so I really have no idea what the deal is with OCI besides just my lack of interviewing skills (possibly?-- I really don't know though because a lot of firms really didn't interview me but just asked me what questions I had for them).

I know the mega spamming isn't the most effective method of getting a job, but it's just really hard to target firms because it's unclear as to what firms even have a summer program this year (about 50% that did last year don't this year), and then out of those that do it seems like most have cut close to 50% of their programs. I actually did have a large pile of rejection letters sitting around at home until I just started throwing them out right away. I think I actually threw a few away without even opening them because I knew they were rejections without even opening them. Many firms emailed back as well though-- It was actually pretty bad when I was spamming during the day because it felt like I was getting rejections just about as fast as I was sending out emails.

Overall, I think last year I would have at least ended up with something out of OCI (even if not a top vault firm), but this year is definitely rougher (but I guess it's not exactly new news that grades alone weren't going to cut it this year, and the lack of journal acceptance (yet) or prior experience didn't help).

I've read/heard that the questions you ask can actually be really important and it's important to put some thought into it. I've been told some interviewers will grade you specifically on the questions you ask. If you think about it, most law student resumes probably look about the same. We all have some random crap from UG, some random part-time work experience, and similar grades, etc. So, one good way to differentiate between the masses is quality of questions we ask, because it shows that we've actually thought about the firm and thus are interested (supposedly).

The same would probably be true for mass mailing. Although all firms are basically the same, they like to think they are super special and thus are looking for you to show them how special you think you are. It's a lame thing, I know.

Also, law firm interviewing is just plain retarded in general. There have been numerous studies done that show that the type of interviewing we do has absolutely no correlation to job performance. There's a name for the type of interviewing it is, but I forgot. Anyway, I think another good approach to interviews with law firms is to strike up a convo about a mutual interest. Then you both enjoy talking, etc.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the process. Take it for what it's worth.

I really liked these "shooting the shit" type interviews where it seemed like the firm was really just more interested in your personality and whether you were social (some just frame their questions/discussion in that way where you just know they aren't asking you anything substantive but just seeing what your personality is like-- e.g. "what are some of your hobbies"). I actually felt the interviews I had that were like that went well, which is why I didn't understand why I got dinged at almost all of those so far. I dunno though I guess that's just one component and there might have been someone that was top 1% at my new school that was also very social.

Anonymous User wrote:Has anyone gotten a callback from Milbank NY, Hughes Hubbard NY, or Shearman & Sterling NY? If so, school/grades, and how long from screening interview to when you got the call inviting you for a callback?

I have a friend who got a call back via email a couple days after the interview. T2 school, top 5%

Just heard from Milbank yesterday. Apparently they just started their first round callback announcements.

How long from interview to phone call?

9 days? 10 days? I don't remember exactly what day I interviewed, but something like that.

While my transfer OCI at George Mason has been going decently well, I have another friend who went to Catholic with me as a 1L.

She was top 12% of the class and transferred to GW. She has extensive experience in the republican political scene--holding national office in College Republicans even while doing 1L. She finished high school at 16, finished college in 3 years with a 3.8 in Political Science. She's a great girl and represents very well in person.

She did OCI at George Washington and put in 15 bids. She got ZERO responses and is about to lose her mind with worry about getting a job.

nativedelta wrote:While my transfer OCI at George Mason has been going decently well, I have another friend who went to Catholic with me as a 1L.

She was top 12% of the class and transferred to GW. She has extensive experience in the republican political scene--holding national office in College Republicans even while doing 1L. She finished high school at 16, finished college in 3 years with a 3.8 in Political Science. She's a great girl and represents very well in person.

She did OCI at George Washington and put in 15 bids. She got ZERO responses and is about to lose her mind with worry about getting a job.

It's just a weird cycle.

Did she go straight through? I know at my T25 it seems that people with some work experience after UG are the ones getting the callbacks even if their grades are slightly lower. Or maybe it's just a weird coincidence...who knows this year.

nativedelta wrote:While my transfer OCI at George Mason has been going decently well, I have another friend who went to Catholic with me as a 1L.

She was top 12% of the class and transferred to GW. She has extensive experience in the republican political scene--holding national office in College Republicans even while doing 1L. She finished high school at 16, finished college in 3 years with a 3.8 in Political Science. She's a great girl and represents very well in person.

She did OCI at George Washington and put in 15 bids. She got ZERO responses and is about to lose her mind with worry about getting a job.

It's just a weird cycle.

Did she go straight through? I know at my T25 it seems that people with some work experience after UG are the ones getting the callbacks even if their grades are slightly lower. Or maybe it's just a weird coincidence...who knows this year.

I don't think work experience prior to going to law school is necessarily an advantage. However, I can see why the girl who finished college by 19 and is doing OCI at the age of 20 would be harmful. One thing firms look for in candidates is maturity, and not even being old enough to legally drink would probably a negative in employers eyes. Granted, if she could show maturity the age thing would not be that big of a deal, but I think at 20 that is hard to do. Hell, I even have a hard time trying to fake maturity and I'm 5 years older then that girl.

I agree that the only flaw I can find is that she has never had a 9 to 5 job. She's 21 now (she turned in spring semester). The maturity thing is not an issue for her. I'm 9 years her senior and she is the only friend I have in that age range. She's an old soul and very professional and pulled together. I think that's very unusual though, and perhaps people see on paper that she's barely out of her teens and shy away. I went through that myself at her age--married and out in the world before I could legally drink.

Honestly I think her age is probably what kept her out of GW the first go-round. Her LSAT and GPA were well within GW's 50% to 75% range, but maybe they saw her age of 19 in Dec. of 2007 in bold on her LSAC report and passed.

Poor girl. I think in any other economy in the past 50 years, she would have had interviews and opportunities, but with so much competition, firms can afford to simply write off some otherwise qualified candidates.